12-30-2013, 08:02 PM
(12-30-2013, 07:43 PM)BrownEye Wrote:No. I'm saying no sh!t, because everyone knows that people, due to their own experiences, may hold special information that may be of benefit. But irrelevant to phenomenological learning. i.e. sharing of a worldview which renders any aspect of the collective worldview any less distorted, for example.(12-30-2013, 07:09 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(12-30-2013, 06:59 PM)BrownEye Wrote: Some people are more sensitive than others, and can gauge personal benefits directly, then pass that info to others.No sh!t, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Are you saying that prices are machine generated rather than on a benefit introduced by someone that found out the benefits for themselves?
(12-30-2013, 07:43 PM)BrownEye Wrote:(12-30-2013, 07:09 PM)zenmaster Wrote:So any information towards the protection or reclamation of health would be an infringement of free will?(12-30-2013, 06:59 PM)BrownEye Wrote: But, what if Ra had stated these benefits? Would you still have the same doubts? Would you be able to test this for yourself? Would you have any actual discernment beyond the gross senses and the intellect?Due to infringement on free will, Ra would not introduce such an influential and distorted system of thought, therefore your hypothetical authority-figure situation is quite moot.
In positive channeling there is no procedural information transmitted that is not 1) specifically asked for and not 2) already part of the collective consciousness. So such specific philosophical/methodological/technological understandings are never going to be related in the first place (hence your moot hypothetical point).